Talk-Polywell.org

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:06 pm**

We've had the technology to build a permanent [manned] settlement on the Moon for decades now. And there is relatively little development pending to be able to put humans on Mars.

Problem is, we have the tech but lack the money, or more exactly politicians lack the will to spend it.

And it's not just the Moon or Mars; time and again we see how, manned and unmanned projects alike, scientific and exploratory, are thrown into the trash-bin.

"They are too expensive". "There are many things here on earth we should spend the available money on before "wasting" it in non profitable, crazy adventures".

Money, money, money. In the end it's just a question of price, and the big problem is that a heavy subsidized industry (like the one we have today making launching systems, regardless of country) lacks the necessary incentives to pursue cost optimization.

Maybe things are starting to change.

SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, SpaceDev, Blue Origin, to some extent Reaction Engines Ltd too, and some others, are, as far as I know, commercial enterprises not [so heavily] dependant of public funds (Boeing-Lockheed Martin's United Launch Alliance can't claim the same).

If the figures given by the wikipedia are to be believed, total cost of the Saturn V program (13 launches) was about $44 billion (2011 dollars), and for the whole Apollo (18 launches) $170 billion (2004).

A Saturn V launch did cost over $1.1 billion (2011) and took 119 tonnes to LEO. That's a bit over $10.000/kg. If this industry had followed the computer market example that tag would have to say less than $100/kg by now ... but that's not the case, to the contrary, prices are rising.

With Falcon 9 SpaceX offers a price near $5.000/kg, and planned cost for Falcon 9 Heavy is about 2.000/kg. Even further, SpaceX's CEO said he thinks $1.000/kg is achievable (all to LEO).

There is one paragraph on their website that I find specially interesting: (sic) "The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million". Supposed true, that's something. How much more would have expended Nasa, Esa, the russians, or the chinese, to develop a launching system of comparable capacity (10.45 tonnes to LEO), and how much would it cost per launch (SpaceX charges $50-$60 million).

And if everything goes well (hope so) in 2-3 years they could make Falcon 9 Heavy operational. 53 tonnes to LEO for just $80-$125 million. With a launcher like that they could put 106 tonnes in orbit for under $250 mil; less than a quarter of the cost from 40 years back for more than enough weight to go back to the moon ... and without Nasa nor anyone else having to have expended a cent in R&D !! (at least for the launcher).

Once the price gets low enough new opportunities arise. Universities, foundations, R&D for other companies, tourism, and even governments anew, if they see they can claim a spot on this or that celestial body without going half broken.

Will the first manned station on the Moon be a commercial enterprise?

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:25 pm**

charliem wrote:We've had the technology to build a permanent [manned] settlement on the Moon for decades now. And there is relatively little development pending to be able to put humans on Mars.

Problem is, we have the tech but lack the money, or more exactly politicians lack the will to spend it.

And it's not just the Moon or Mars; time and again we see how, manned and unmanned projects alike, scientific and exploratory, are thrown into the trash-bin.

"They are too expensive". "There are many things here on earth we should spend the available money on before "waisting" it in non profitable, crazy adventures".

Money, money, money. In the end it's just a question of price, and the big problem is that a heavy subsidized industry (like the one we have today making launching systems, regardless of country) lacks the necessary incentives to pursue cost optimization.

Maybe things are starting to change.

SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, SpaceDev, Blue Origin, to some extent Reaction Engines Ltd too, and some others, are, as far as I know, commercial enterprises not [so heavily] dependant of public funds (Boeing-Lockheed Martin's United Launch Alliance can't claim the same).

If the figures given by the wikipedia are to be believed, total cost of the Saturn V program (13 launches) was about $44 billion (2011 dollars), and for the whole Apollo (18 launches) $170 billion (2004).

A Saturn V launch did cost over $1.1 billion (2011) and took 119 tonnes to LEO. That's a bit over $10.000/kg. If this industry had followed the computer market example that tag would have to say less than $100/kg by now ... but that's not the case, to the contrary, prices are rising.

With Falcon 9 SpaceX offers a price near $5.000/kg, and planned cost for Falcon 9 Heavy is about 2.000/kg. Even further, SpaceX's CEO said he thinks $1.000/kg is achievable (all to LEO).

There is one paragraph on their website that I find specially interesting: (sic) "The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million". Supposed true, that's something. How much more would have expended Nasa, Esa, the russians, or the chinese, to develop a launching system of comparable capacity (10.45 tonnes to LEO), and how much would it cost per launch (SpaceX charges $50-$60 million).

And if everything goes well (hope so) in 2-3 years they could make Falcon 9 Heavy operational. 53 tonnes to LEO for just $80-$125 million. With a launcher like that they could put 106 tonnes in orbit for under $250 mil; less than a quarter of the cost from 40 years back for more than enough weight to go back to the moon ... and without Nasa nor anyone else having to have expended a cent in R&D !! (at least for the launcher).

Once the price gets low enough new opportunities arise. Universities, foundations, R&D for other companies, tourism, and even governments anew, if they see they can claim a spot on this or that celestial body without going half broken.

Will the first manned station on the Moon be a commercial enterprise?

What is the most profitable business in the world outside of drugs? An unregulated commercial enterprise could operate such a business but drugs wouldn't work for lack of a broad customer base. Maybe unregulated gambling, but I think the costs need to come down further for even unregulated gambling to work.
I just don't see the business case. I wish I did. In Science Fiction, the business case is sometimes given as the operation of retirement facilities for the super rich where the low gravity of the moon supposedly results in life extension.

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:23 pm**

Aero wrote:I just don't see the business case. I wish I did. In Science Fiction, the business case is sometimes given as the operation of retirement facilities for the super rich where the low gravity of the moon supposedly results in life extension.

Aero. I think that you are being a bit unimaginative ... or maybe is me who is letting fly my mind too far, but I see many possibilities.

In the recently announced SLS program the development costs, just for the first version of the rocket, is going to be $10 billion from now to 2017 (and I'd be really surprised if in the end NASA doesn't at least double that figure). Plus $6 B more for the capsule, and another $2 B for the launch pad.

From 2017 to 2025 they plan a total of 5 launches, one every two years, 70 tonnes each. Total cost of this is going to be no less than $35 billion.

So they are going to expend $18 B in development, and another $17 B in 5 missions (minimum).

Even rubbing off the $10 B in development, is really anyone thinking that NASA is going to be able to reduce the cost per kg to LEO from the roughly $20000 of the Space Shuttle, to, or below, the $5000 that SpaceX is already offering with Falcon 9 (and the expected $2000 with Falcon 9 Heavy in 2014)?

True, the SLS rocket will be able of carrying 70 tonnes versus "just" 53 tonnes Falcon 9 Heavy, but that's not the issue. The key is that the private enterprise is, at last, starting to do what they do best, optimize, give you more for less. Politicians can (and probably will) try to asphyxiate it, but I don't think they'll be able to do more than delay them.

I've been unable to find how much of that $35 B is to pay for the launches but we know how much would SpaceX charge for lifting those 350 tonnes to LEO: using the already operational Falcon 9 the bill would be $1.75 B, and with Falcon 9 Heavy an almost ridiculous $0.7 B.

There's no way that NASA can beat that.

But that doesn't mean that they are going to abandon their pretense to go to the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, to launch the James Webb Space Telescope, or many other missions they'd love to be able to do.

So, we start with one big potential client: NASA, and if a subcontractor could offer NASA some services for a fraction of the cost that it would take them to build their own infraestructure, don't you think they would take it?

So, externalize boy.

Of course that having only one client is a huge risk, but I'm not at all sure that the only other purpose for a Moon privately owned station is for elder retirees.

Think telescopes, think high vacuum without the nuisances of zero g, think tourism, why not, and geologic research, maybe a privileged platform for integrating and launching bigger spaceships (space yards are good for sci-fi, but I don't see them in our near future), for standardizing exploration vehicles that could reach most of the solar system, think even fuel production if ice water is found in sufficient quantities, maybe some mining of rare elements (He isotopes?), who knows...

Sooner or latter, space, like many other frontier enterprises before, is going to leave the hands of the governments, and I think that is more evident every year.

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:41 pm**

charliem, I am completely with you on that issue.
I am very much convinced that the first base on the moon will be done by a commercial company and not NASA. NASA currently does not even have a plan of how to get back to the moon and the insane cost of the SLS wll eat all the funding for any BEO missions anyway.
Unfortunately cogress severely cut the funding for commercial crew, so NASA will use less commercial providers, in a worst case only one and they will have less money for development. So things will take longer.
I am still conviced that SpaceX and others too will ultimately handle human space flight in the US, NASA or not.
ULA already has a capable rocket with the Atlas V, Boeing will build their capsule probably even without NASA funding for the entire programe. SpaceX will persue their goals either way. Elon is not doing this for the money. There are much easier businesses to get rich with than space flight.
Anyway, things will go on without NASA. It will just take a bit longer. That unfortunately means that it wont make a difference in my lifetime anymore. I am going to be to old to even dream anymore, but maybe my son will be inspired by people like Elon Musk and SpaceX and become an astronaut for them one day.

On a more delightful note. Have you heard about the RLV testing that SpaceX is planning on doing soon?

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:02 pm**

Skipjack wrote:On a more delightful note. Have you heard about the RLV testing that SpaceX is planning on doing soon?

Yep, one of the few good news of the year.

Here is a link to the "Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas" with some extra interesting info inside:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... .Final.pdf

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:04 am**

I was loooking at a moon base as an option on top of my "moon shot" TV show idea.

Lunar transfer vehicle with lander is launched dry, should be able to get below 53 tonnes. Crew and fuel and consumables are carried up on a Dragon. Below $400M for the launch, vehicle costs would include development for now. Later missions reuse the LTV and lander, so if they can do half a dozen missions, the other five are only the cost of launching the new crew and consumables.

Billion dollars for half a dozen Apollos anyone?

Things like lunar rovers and such would be one way, leaving cargo space on landers for later missions. A couple tons a time should get most of the equipment you need up there.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:52 am**

Thanks for the tip Skipjack. Interesting, although I fail to see what SpaceX is trying to achieve with that VTVL.

kunkmiester wrote:Lunar transfer vehicle with lander is launched dry, should be able to get below 53 tonnes. Crew and fuel and consumables are carried up on a Dragon. Below $400M for the launch, vehicle costs would include development for now. Later missions reuse the LTV and lander, so if they can do half a dozen missions, the other five are only the cost of launching the new crew and consumables.

Billion dollars for half a dozen Apollos anyone?

Things like lunar rovers and such would be one way, leaving cargo space on landers for later missions. A couple tons a time should get most of the equipment you need up there.

Some figures from the Apollo 11 mission operation report:

Saturn V delivered ~133 tonnes to a parking orbit 191 km high (vs 320-400 for ISS).

Weights at that point where (aprox, all in metric tonnes):
- 3rd stage dry weight: 12.8 t
  3rd stage remaining fuel: 72 t
  Instrument Unit: 2 t
  Lunar Module "case": 1.8 t
  Lunar Module dry weight: 4.3 t
  Lunar Module fuel: 10.7 t
  Service Module dry weight: 4.8 t
  Service Module fuel: 18.4 t
  Command Module: 5.5 t
After TLI (trans lunar injection) only remained less that half of that, 44 tonnes.

So it took a 13 tonnes vehicle and 72 tonnes of fuel to put those 44 into the TLI trajectory.

For all that effort the final weight on the Moon was 7.1 tonnes, and another 26 in orbit around it.

It's quite evident that you could, even now, send those components separately, and do it for a fraction of the money they had to pay.

And if the mission were just to deliver some support stuff those 7 tonnes could well be 20 if you start with 110 at LEO, or 10 if you start with 53.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:55 am**

charliem wrote:what SpaceX is trying to achieve with that VTVL.

Stage re-use.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:43 pm**

Stage re-use.

And fast turn arround times.
Dont forget that the goal of Elon Musk is to lower the cost of access to space, most of all. It is not to become rich. He is already rich, but he would like to do a lot of space travel. So he needs to bring the cost down enough that even a rich person (and maybe one day a not quite so rich person) can afford that

I think that this is awesome news. I hope that they will have a lot of success with this!

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:49 pm**

charliem wrote:We've had the technology to build a permanent [manned] settlement on the Moon for decades now.
...
Will the first manned station on the Moon be a commercial enterprise?

Aero wrote:I just don't see the business case.

Re-reading the numbers for the Apollo missions I had an idea for another possible business case.

Fuel.

From the ~133 tonnes that the Apollo 11 mission put in orbit, 101 where fuel. All the rest of the hardware weighted just 31.

One of the main reasons that interplanetary endeavors are so expensive is the huge cost of lifting the necessary fuel to LEO.

Counterintuitive as it might seem, it'd me much easier (and cheaper) to fetch it from farther.

Delta-v necessary to lift something from the earth to LEO is 9-10 km/s. Delta-v necessary to take the same something from the Moon surface to LLO is just 1.9 km/s, and not much more to LEO, only 2.75. The Apollo Lunar Module Ascent Stage that took 2 man and some hundred pounds of rocks from the surface to LLO only weighted 4.7 tonnes, 2.6 of it fuel. To do the same on Earth the rocket would weight in the order of hundreds of tonnes, and had to burn at least 95% of that.

Water would be an almost ideal source for fuel. Evidences for the presence of ice on the moon are mounting.

But even if Moon's water extraction costs were too high, there are other possibilities. We still don't know what ores and chemicals could be found there in abundance. Later theories claim that most of the mineral concentrations on the Earth crust could be remains from the heavy asteroid bombardment it suffered about 4.000 million years ago. I think it's logic to deduce that since Earth and Moon have almost the same age, both should have the same deposits.

And to finalize a disclaimer. I'm not saying that making and sending fuel from the Moon to other parts of the Earth-Moon system is evidently cheaper, because there are many costs to evaluate: sending the necessary equipment and people to the Moon, fabrication, launching and transfer systems, safety related costs, etc. What I'm saying is that I think it's worth studying.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:56 pm**

In an ideal world, I would build small transfer stations in Lunar Orbit and earth orbit. Then I would build a reusable space transport that uses nuclear thermal engines to transport people back and forth between the moon and earth. That would need a lot less fuel than a chemical engine and also only hydrogen...
One could use solar electric rockets to transport cargo/fuel to the various orbits, which would use even less fuel, but wold obviously be to slow for transporting people...
The investment for this sort of infrastructure is a lot more than a one shot moon mission, but it would save a lot of money in the long term.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:13 pm**

The LTV wouldn't just be that though. Forgot to put this in. You have a reasonably sized vehicle in orbit that would ideally have a couple of docking rings, and carry enough fuel to enter a lunar transfer orbit. What earth orbit would be difficult for it to obtain? It's practically a MOL(manned orbital laboratory), capable of doing everything one of those can do. Repair satellites, do experiments--I can even see cargo dragons taking actual manufacturing work up and down. How does that sound?

The construction I see for the LTV is somewhat like a Bigelow--rigid rings(holding docking collars and such) between a rocket engine and a nosecone. A lunar mission would have a lander and a dragon connected, but other things could be modularized and put on. Theoretically, a couple of extra habitat modules could allow a mission beyond the moon. Not efficient with just chemical rockets, but hey, if you've already got them up there...why not?

Incidentally, the LTV could eventually carry a very useful cargo back from the moon--fuel and oxygen. If the delta V is so much less, it should be much cheaper, yes? At the least, it'd fuel up at the moon, and the only thing you have to lift from earth is people and food. and maybe not even food eventually. A greenhouse module could be interesting for a lot of purposes.

Building fuel depots and such would eventually happen to help support stuff like this. I'd imagine a nuclear rocket would be built on the moon or fueled from uranium mined on the moon, to help avoid political crap from trying to launch one from earth.

Judging by the costs of developing the Falcon family, what do you think it would cost Musk to build a MOL or lunar transfer vehicle and lander?

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:21 am**

I've been off-line, and mostly idle, for a couple of weeks. In my boredom I dedicated some time to think a bit more about the issue covered in this thread: building the first permanent human base on the Moon.

The main problem is the ridiculously low mass fraction that we can put on the Moon with the current technology (and, consequently, high cost):

From sea level to LEO (200 km): <5% (Saturn V: 4,4%, Shuttle: 1,2%, Falcon 9: 3,1%, Falcon 9H: 3'8%) (delta-V: 9,3 km/s)
From LEO to LLO: <25% (delta-V: 4,0 km/s)
From LLO to the Moon: <35% (delta-V: 1'9 km/s)
Multiplying, surface to surface, from Earth to the Moon, less than 0'44%.

Just by this, every kg taken to the Moon is going to cost, minimum, 10 times more than taken to LEO, even without considering other costs.

Apollo 11-17 put 5 tonnes of cargo on the Moon (the lunar module ascent stage). For a base, thousands of tonnes would be needed. And don't forget supplies and refurbishement.

Looks impossible from a pure economic perspective.

It's evident that we will have to look for ways of diminishing the bill.

Elon Musk said, just 10 days ago, that they think it is possible to build a fully reusable launch vehicle that could be used up to one thousand times and, if successful, bring down the price per kg to LEO by a factor of 100 (to tell you the truth I think he overstep there ... by far, but who knows).

If that'd turn out to be true it'd be a HUGE step ahead toward building a permanent base on the Moon, but I would not put all my eggs on this one bag.

Another avenue: ¿What about making a gas station in LEO, but fill it with fuel taken from a shallower well?

From Earth to LEO the total delta-V necessary is 9'3-10 km/s. From the Moon surface, and taking advantage of aerobraking, you could do it with 2,75. With conventional rockets that means elevating the fraction of mass from <5% to 25-30%. And there are even better possibilities, from the Moon to LLO delta-V is 1,9 km/s (fraction of mass 30-45%), and from there a slow ion-engine could take 90%+ of it to LEO.

I think it is time to give the first steps to start mining the Moon, or to be more precise, prospecting for whatever might be of value, starting with water ice. Whatever can be produced on the Moon is something that won't have to be taken.

Theoretically from the 333 tonnes of a Falcon 9, ~1 tonne could touch down on the Moon. Enough to carry a rover to start looking for water and minerals (a Falcon 9H would fetch there ~5 tonnes).

Maybe I'm daydreaming, but I think that we are getting near a time when we'll see the birth of a "Moon Company", a bit like the old East India Company although, this time, aimed to find and claim useful resources that will be put to use in the future.

Posted: **Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:59 pm**

Your math from Apollo presumes a one use stack. If the LTV and lander are refueled, then the only mass to be lifted is fuel.

I think Musk's idea is fascinating. Think about this: if we refuel using the moon, then you could refuel the rocket while it's up, and return with enough fuel to make another "jump" with little if any fuel from earth.

Anyway, if you put reusable infrastructure in orbit, then the only thing you have to lift is people, their vehicle(Dragon) and fuel/supplies(for a little while anyway). By cutting the amount of material to be lifted, you cut the cost of lifting what you actually want to transport.

My idea should be able to match the Apollo mass fraction, if not exceed it. 5 tonnes should give you plenty for a robotic base construction set if you play it carefully. Just take the machines(and parts of machines) you absolutely have to make on earth.

Talk-Polywell.org

Could the 1st human station on the Moon be commercial?

Could the 1st human station on the Moon be commercial?

Re: Could the 1st human station on the Moon be commercial?

Re: Could the 1st human station on the Moon be commercial?

Re: Could the 1st human station on the Moon be commercial?